[HN Gopher] Oliver Stone Releases Trailer for His Pro-Nuclear En...
___________________________________________________________________
Oliver Stone Releases Trailer for His Pro-Nuclear Energy Movie
Author : melling
Score : 56 points
Date : 2023-03-21 20:57 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.hollywoodreporter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.hollywoodreporter.com)
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| I do think that Nuclear energy is better than fossil fuels, in
| almost all aspects.
|
| Nuclear power is not really that clean, and long-term maintenance
| or dismantling of nuclear power plants is problematic.
|
| Also, while I think we've been under the influence of powerful
| lobbies linked to oil/coal interests, nuclear power is also an
| industry with powerful and active lobbies.
|
| We should not discount solar and wind based energy production,
| they are beating expectations and are turning out to be a serious
| option.
| 10g1k wrote:
| Countries with nuclear reactors: 32.
|
| Countries which have had nuclear leaks or meltdowns: 15.
|
| Number of nuclear leaks and meltdowns since 1952 (only those
| which resulted in loss of human life or >US$50K property damage):
| ~100.
|
| About 60% of those have been in the USA, allegedly the most
| advanced country in the world.
|
| Note that the USA requirements for nuclear reactor waste (yes,
| they produce toxic waste; they are not clean), last time I
| checked, required the canisters to be able to survive for 300
| years. The waste lasts longer than 300 years.
|
| Two years ago the USA had a leak which spilled ~400,000 gallons
| of radioactive water into a major river system, and it was
| covered up for two years.
|
| Finally: If you are not willing to have a nuclear reactor right
| beside your house, but are willing to have one beside someone
| else's house, you are a coward and are not really in favour of
| nuclear power.
| vfclists wrote:
| 400,000 gallons = 12 meter cube of water.
|
| And how concentrated was that?
|
| Do you mind comparing it with the damage done by oil and coal
| powered stations or even hydro?
| hermitcrab wrote:
| Lots of people have been killed by dam failures. 240,000 people
| just from the failure of the Banqiao and Shimantan Dams in
| 1975, according to wikipedia:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure
|
| But I don't see anyone calling for an end to hydroelectric
| power. Fission power certainly has it's issues, but I think a
| lot of the opposition to it is more emotional than rational.
| pengaru wrote:
| > But I don't see anyone calling for an end to hydroelectric
| power.
|
| You must not be looking very hard then, plenty folks object
| to hydroelectric power.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| There's quite a big difference between objecting to
| specific _instances_ of hydroelectric power and opposition
| to the entire concept (as exists for nuclear fission)
| katbyte wrote:
| I would far rather live in a town with a nuclear power plant
| the either a coal/oil/gas power plant.
| melling wrote:
| I don't want to live next to a coal power plant either.
|
| 40% of the electricity globally is generated with coal.
|
| It also produces something like 25% of greenhouse emissions.
|
| It has been like this for half a century?
|
| Waiting for the renewables and batteries really isn't working
| out.
|
| We've squandered decades, and could have bought ourselves an
| extra few decades.
| 10g1k wrote:
| Not liking apples is not a pro-orange argument.
| kbelder wrote:
| It is is you have to eat and your choices are limited.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| For what it's worth burning coal emits more radiation than
| nuclear.
| Schroedingersat wrote:
| No waiting was required. Wind + PHES has been a better option
| since before fission reactors were invented.
| Georgelemental wrote:
| > 400,000 gallons of radioactive water
|
| _How_ radioactive? Bananas are "radioactive" and so are you.
| As far as I can tell the amount didn't actually pose a health
| risk to anyone.
|
| > If you are not willing to have a nuclear reactor right beside
| your house, but are willing to have one beside someone else's
| house, you are a coward and are not really in favour of nuclear
| power.
|
| I would live near a nuclear reactor. I wouldn't _prefer_ it, as
| the cooling towers are unsightly. But I wouldn 't be worried
| about safety. Definitely preferable to living next to a coal
| plant!
| uhtred wrote:
| > If you are not willing to have a nuclear reactor right beside
| your house, but are willing to have one beside someone else's
| house, you are a coward and are not really in favour of nuclear
| power.
|
| If you are not willing to have a pig farm right beside your
| house, but are willing to have one beside someone else's house,
| you are a hypocrite and should not really be eating meat.
| it_citizen wrote:
| I would pick a nuclear plant over a dam any day.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Sort of a pointless comparison, isn't it?
|
| number of people who could live next to a dam: "small"
|
| number of people who could live next a nuclear power plant:
| "much, much larger"
| mike_d wrote:
| Here is a great thread that might clear up some of your
| misconceptions about nuclear waste:
| https://twitter.com/MadiHilly/status/1550148385931513856?lan...
| smithcoin wrote:
| Deaths per terawatt-hour of energy production:
|
| - Biomass 4.63
|
| - Brown coal 32.72
|
| - Coal 24.62
|
| - Gas 2.82
|
| - Hydropower 1.30
|
| - Nuclear 0.03
|
| - Oil 18.43
|
| - Solar 0.02
|
| - Wind 0.04
|
| Source: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007); Sovacool et al. (2016);
| UNSCEAR (2008; & 2018)
|
| Nuclear energy is one of the safest forms of energy we have.
| this_user wrote:
| Statistics like these are largely useless for comparison for
| several reason. One of these is the small sample size of
| nuclear accidents while the probability distribution of their
| impact exhibits an extremely high kurtosis risk, what Nassim
| Taleb calls a "Black Swan". All it takes is one Chernobyl-
| level accident in a densely populated area, and these
| statistics would look significantly worse for nuclear energy.
|
| But even if you could avoid an extremely large number of
| immediate and long-term deaths from the accident, suddenly
| having to evacuate and relocate tens of millions of people
| overnight would take most countries to the brink of collapse.
|
| And none of that even takes into account how completely
| uncompetitive nuclear energy is in economic terms, how long
| it would take to build new plans, and that long-term storage
| of radioactive waste still lacks a proper solution despite
| decades of work. It's a dead technology, and the time has
| come to stop wasting resources on trying to make it work when
| those could be used much more productively to accelerate the
| move towards renewables.
| Schroedingersat wrote:
| This is only valid reasoning if the danger from those TWh is
| passed and is a statistically significant sample.
|
| It also intentionally ignores the hundreds of thousands of
| mining and mill workers and indiginous people living near
| unremediated mines in India, Uzbekistan, Niger, Usa,
| Kazakhstan, Mayak, and so on.
| computershit wrote:
| > Finally: If you are not willing to have a nuclear reactor
| right beside your house, but are willing to have one beside
| someone else's house, you are a coward and are not really in
| favour of nuclear power.
|
| Did anyone even make this point? What's more I don't think
| _any_ one wants _any_ kind of power plant next to their house.
| That 's why they're zoned.
| vld_chk wrote:
| Quite funny last statement.
|
| There are no more supporters of nuclear than people who live
| and work in this industry. So if you are trying to say that
| people who live next to NPP are "against" it, you say a wrong
| statement.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Apparently he bashes wind and solar which is not particularly
| helpful.
|
| Makes his experts look like kooks if they claim "mostly nuclear"
| is the way forward.
| Georgelemental wrote:
| It _is_ the way forward if you want a reliable grid. Solar and
| wind are intermittent, and the storage technology we would need
| to make them the primary source of power just doesn 't exist
| yet.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| That same Oliver Stone that praised Putin until the 24-Feb-2022
| and even a bit after?
| gexaha wrote:
| and also the same Oliver Stone that helped making conspiracy
| theories mainstream!
| jesusofnazarath wrote:
| [dead]
| 0xDEF wrote:
| It's sad that nuclear energy has been so ostracized that only
| Hollywood's compulsive contrarian support it.
| asdff wrote:
| Most of people's understanding of nuclear energy seems to
| have come from _The Simpsons_. Big glowing leaky drums and 3
| eyed fish.
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| You can support nuclear and not be a Hollywood contrarian
| like, apparently, Oliver Stone.
| inpdx wrote:
| My thoughts exactly. I enjoyed his 80s films. He lost it
| sometime after that.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| Having watched "JFK" I'm not really interested in anything Oliver
| Stone has to say.
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| regardless of whether you agree with the message it was a great
| movie
| vld_chk wrote:
| Very sad to see that such important topic and message are going
| to be delivered by such freak. Now people who are against nuclear
| power will have even more emotional arguments against it.
|
| P.S. Specially for people who "if you don't live nearby: shut
| up", I have lived near NPP my entire childhood and both of my
| parents worked 30+ years in this industry.
| epistasis wrote:
| I agree that this is not a beneficial contribution to improving
| the public debate about nuclear.
|
| However the public debate around nuclear is pretty much
| meaningless until there's a revolution in nuclear technology:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35159449
|
| Research on nuclear tech is continuing apace, without being
| influenced by public debate. There are plenty of sites that
| would love to have new nuclear if such a tech revolution
| happens, especially at existing NPP.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-21 23:01 UTC)